GoRon
Member
??? The Congress elected by the people?
Remember Having a Democrat President?
- Thread starter ReadyontheRight
- Start date
- Status
??? The Congress elected by the people?
CAnnoneer
Member
You are still avoiding the real argument, which is about the trumped-up "intelligence". The chain of veracity was broken in POTUS's cabinet.
JerryM
Member
Having seen both parties in power, I have concluded that until the Dems go back to what they were in the 30s and 40s I want Republicans in the Presidency, and control both houses of Congress. Part of that has to do with who will be nominated and confirmed to the SCOTUS. I think with the likes of Souter, and O'Conner, the Reps have learned that it is dog fight, and come ready.
I think Bush is one of the better presidents in my lifetime, the best being Reagan. None has shown me perfection, but on balance the Republicans have the moral and logical high ground.
Jerry
I think Bush is one of the better presidents in my lifetime, the best being Reagan. None has shown me perfection, but on balance the Republicans have the moral and logical high ground.
Jerry
JohnBT
Member
"Remember Having a Democrat President?"
Yes, although only vaguely in the case of Truman because I was little back then.
I clearly remember Clinton's dot.com bubble economy.
John
Yes, although only vaguely in the case of Truman because I was little back then.
I clearly remember Clinton's dot.com bubble economy.
John
The Drew said:
I suppose that the people in Bosnia, Somolia, and Afganistan might argue that dropping bombs on their countries constitute wars even if they arent declaired.
Clinton didnt need an excuse to curtail civil liberties, he considered it to be his duty as president.
wolf_from_wv
Member
Yes I do. I remember what a relief it was that is was over, too. I thought a president should at least be halfway honest if he doesn't have decent morals. :banghead:
If we had a gate up at the border for every 'Gate that we had during "The Impeached One's" presidency, we wouldn't have to worry about illegal immigrants - they'd all be dead from exhaustion from opening all of them...
Why is it that everyone jumps on Bush for lieing, and overlook "The Impeached One's" lies? Is it because Bush professes to be Christian, and is held to that standard? That doesn't say much for Clinton...
If we had a gate up at the border for every 'Gate that we had during "The Impeached One's" presidency, we wouldn't have to worry about illegal immigrants - they'd all be dead from exhaustion from opening all of them...
Why is it that everyone jumps on Bush for lieing, and overlook "The Impeached One's" lies? Is it because Bush professes to be Christian, and is held to that standard? That doesn't say much for Clinton...
BigFatKen
Member
Kerry or Gore?
Sir:
What several others do you mean?
In few elections do we have the choice of good vs. evil. It is usually evil vs a lesser evil. My signature is about choice. The people of England threw out the "war monger" Churchill and voted in the canidate who would bring peace circa 1934. In only a few years, they were proved WAY wrong.
Only the GOP or Dem. canidate had a chance of winning. Perot proved this in 1992 with ~20% vote but 0 States.
Does anyone really want one of these Dem. canidates running the Country now?
Sir:
What several others do you mean?
In few elections do we have the choice of good vs. evil. It is usually evil vs a lesser evil. My signature is about choice. The people of England threw out the "war monger" Churchill and voted in the canidate who would bring peace circa 1934. In only a few years, they were proved WAY wrong.
Only the GOP or Dem. canidate had a chance of winning. Perot proved this in 1992 with ~20% vote but 0 States.
Does anyone really want one of these Dem. canidates running the Country now?
Lone_Gunman
Member
The McCain-Feingold Law (Campaign Finance reform) violates the First Amendment, despite a Supreme Court ruling to contrary.
The Patriot Act violates at least the Fourth Amendment.
As for your question about a Democrat running the country now, I would submit that it would make little difference, and might in fact be a good thing. If a Democrat is President, and the Congress remains under Republican control, political gridlock will ensue, and nothing will get accomplished.
There has been an abundance of bad legislation signed into law by Bush, including McCain-Feingold, the Patriot Act, and Medicare Reform. If the Republicans had not controlled both the Congress and Presidency, we would not have these laws today.
RealGun
Member
Nanook said:
Other than on some social issues that third parties tend not to address, there isn't much polarity within the bulk of the voting public, when it comes to real government issues. It should be no surprise that the two major parties are addressing a more or less homogeneous position, trying to find some way of differentiating themselves on fringe issues. Sometimes its the smoothest talker, better looking on camera, or the better looking tie. Purist political philosophies that rely upon real knowledge of government don't stand a chance.
RealGun
Member
Lone_Gunman said:
Why did Congress pass them? How is it that it is just GW doing all these evil things to us?
In truth, I often wonder why I even bother to vote. Nowadays, it just seems like an excersise in futility. The answer I always come up with is, I owe at least that much to a whole lot of dead Americans, stretching from 1776 to the present.
Biker
Biker
Lone_Gunman
Member
You are right, I should have been more clear and said the Republicans did these things to us. A Republican controlled Congress passed these bills which were then signed into law by a Republican president. Bush is not the only one to blame here, though he is the only man in the country who could have vetoed them, but that would have required him to do what is right for the country, and not just right for the Republican party.
You do agree the Congress and Presidency are both controlled by Republicans, right? If a bad law is passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, it is kind of hard to blame the Democrats.
tonytulipz
member
cookekdjr said:
+1
Stevie-Ray
Member
I couldn't agree more. If I knew back then what I know now.........Wiley said:
I'd still vote Bush.
BigFatKen said:
This, coupled with your sig has made me respond. Apologies for the tangent that ensues.
Churchill appeared to be long gone by 1934. He'd messed up in the Admiralty, and as Chancellor of the Exchequer and had suggested machine gunning miners. He wasn't in the National Government that came to power in 1931, and spent a lot of time opposing the giving up of India. He was beginning to look like a dinosaur.
And this 'voted for appeasement' in 1933. I'm not sure to what you refer. In 1933 Hitler had quite a few admirers, all across the world, his colours are obvious in hindsight. That's why hindsight is so marvellous.
Are you referring to the Treaty of Lausanne? That was 1932.
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
Lone_Gunman said:
I think you have it right, but it is apparent then why vetoes don't occur. It is Congress who presents this stuff to the President. Even if it was a WH proposal, Congress approved it. If the President were to veto something, it would usually be illogical to do so, especially if Congressional leadership was consulting with the WH on what the President would accept.
It is more interesting to watch what Congress won't approve, such as the Marriage Amendment. When calling for vetoes and dinging the President, one is really knocking the GOP. Neither Congress nor the WH seems to know what is or is not constitutional. Everyone has an opinion and a rationale. The government only knows what they would like to do and will find a way to do it, to explain it, and to spin it.
I believe that anything questionable, perhaps garnering an objection from at least two Senators from different States, should have a sunset provision. This thing about making controversial provisions "permanent" is too troubling. Compelling provisions should easily enough get near unanimous votes.
The Drew
Member
Lone_Gunman said:
This is the EXACT reason I cannot vote for any more republicans at the federal level. They have betrayed us at nearly every chance they get. Opting to fill the pockets of their friends in big business instead of what is right for the american people...
RealGun
Member
The Drew said:
Well yeah, a Democrat would say that...a tired old line and fundamental to socialism.
The Drew
Member
RealGun said:
NO, a Democrat would say that they'd rather fill the pockets of the poor rather than corporate special interests....
I am NO Democrat...
But I am no corporatist like the current admin...
I am a capitalist, and believe that corporations should be left alone by the government.
tonytulipz
member
The Drew said:
Very true, having lost a job to the Outsourcing, I will do everything I can to make this current Admin stall. They are only interested in Profits for themselves and eploiting our civil liberties based on fear.
RealGun
Member
tonytulipz said:
Yet we enjoy minimal inflation, stability of investments, and better quality products due to the lower costs and greater availability of foreign labor. We used to encourage immigration for such purposes. This administration did not cause your unemployment.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
tonytulipz
member
hmm.....
Do you work at Walmart?? Or just own stock in them??
RealGun said:
Do you work at Walmart?? Or just own stock in them??
RealGun
Member
tonytulipz said:
No. I am self employed and sell an imported version of an item for the same price as it was in 1978.
GoRon
Member
The economy may very well be better now than under Clinton.
Clinton had the (squandered) peace dividend and the dot com boom/bubble.
The real weakness right now is the fear of a real estate crash. Real estate just keeps going up and up and that rightly scares some.
Other than that the economy is remarkably strong in spite of terrible blows.
There will always be people who think society owes them a living and refuse to learn skills that demand a decent wage.
The big lie of the Democrats is that government can protect you from reality.
Clinton had the (squandered) peace dividend and the dot com boom/bubble.
The real weakness right now is the fear of a real estate crash. Real estate just keeps going up and up and that rightly scares some.
Other than that the economy is remarkably strong in spite of terrible blows.
There will always be people who think society owes them a living and refuse to learn skills that demand a decent wage.
The big lie of the Democrats is that government can protect you from reality.
- Status